New Keith Woods and Joel Davis video on popular sovereignty - some criticisms

submitted by NeoRail from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is a bit too long for my taste,

I haven't really enjoyed anything Keith has put out in the last 3 or 4 months. Maybe longer. Some of his interviews are ok but that's about it.

In my view, that is also what "popular sovereignty" put in practice in general tends to boil down to - manufacturing consent. In any case, we are dealing with a phenomenon which does not present an eternal truth and is neither inevitable nor constant, but rather precariously maintained, even as a fiction or an illusion.

Well said and I agree. Popular sovereignty feels like ethnic nationalism subverted and diverted into bureaucracy with contractual terminology.

Watching this video has convinced me that while there is indeed great value in philosophy, a broad, high-quality historical education would probably be a lot more useful to Rightists today.

Strongly agree but there's a good deal of overlap between history, philosophy and politics. I don't think you can completely understand any of them without spending time on the other two. As you get closer to modernity in your study of history you'll notice that political concepts and philosophy becomes more convoluted and derivative.

History, when examined carefully and from the correct perspective, allows us to understand where various ideas come from, what purpose and whose goals they served or continue to serve, and what ideas are correct and incorrect.

Hard work and honest evaluation of historical sources always brings you back to certain timeless concepts. There's a manipulative self serving way to approach history and an honest and fair way. Unfortunately I think the 'honest' way is often tragic. History looks quite brutal and repetitive the deeper you go. People don't learn their lesson very easily.

It is not easy to read history correctly

That's an understatement. Ultimately history is delivered to us by imperfect messengers. Ourselves.

One of Evola's main contributions was, in my opinion, a Rightist theory of history, and his work even provides some practical examples of that theory put to action, but I am not sure if there is any significant amount of historical literature written from that perspective.

When I think of a 'rightist' theory of history I think of anti revisionism. There was no right or left in the past because the Jew had not yet captured institutions and created the left. Most classical historians were already living under right wing preceps as they documented. We only strive for a rightist view because we are like a man held down under water struggling for air.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I haven't really enjoyed anything Keith has put out in the last 3 or 4 months. Maybe longer. Some of his interviews are ok but that's about it.

Keith is an intelligent and well-read man but he's a very dull speaker and boring presenter. It's easy to fall asleep during his videos as we drones about Hegelianism or some other impenetrable philosophical jargon. It's far more interesting to listen to history, war, material analysis or literary/film analysis than this stuff.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What do you mean by anti revisionism?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

After the Jews marched through the institutions they started putting out their own interpretations of white people's history. This normally gets called either revisionism or post modernism. Historiography itself is another weird jew domain so I'll try not to get too far in the weeds. Revisionism just means taking what's considered a standard historical interpretation and flipping it to mean something else. Revisionism can have a negative connotation. For example mainstream holocaust 'historians' call any historians doing research they don't agree on 'revisionists'. Which implies there's political motivation to do the research. Basically if you're outside the academy looking in and don't like what they're doing they call you a 'revisionist' and then once you are in the academy you're not one. Personally I think almost all modern historians are so tainted by Jewish loxism they are all 'revisionist' over my white history. I think there are so many layers of 'approved' jewish revisionism that our true history is deeply buried.

Post modernism is a little more complicated. I can try to explain it if people are interested.

So when I say 'anti revisionism' I just mean going back to white scholars, that don't hate themselves or their people, analyzing history in more traditional ways. Whites are basically one of the few racial groups in the world that try to tell history from a semi neutral position.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For example mainstream holocaust 'historians' call any historians doing research they don't agree on 'revisionists'. Which implies there's political motivation to do the research.

I'm not sure about this. The mainstream calls these people denialists (still), but they prefer to be called revisionists. The mainstream narrative itself has been heavily revised from the initial "survivor" testimonies and show trial accusations.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The mainstream calls these people denialists (still), but they prefer to be called revisionists.

That's true. Revisionism is the more respectable word but I've talked to professors that will use the word revisionism when dealing with holocaust denial literature.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think what is necessary is a new historiography. The original historiography of the modern West is a liberal one, and the one that is currently supplanting the liberal historiography is a leftist one. What would be most constructive, in my opinion, would be writing a Traditionalist historiography that remains sympathetic towards European history no matter the era. That would allow people to form coherent identities and learn from the mistakes and successes of the past.